<nettime> nettimespace unentangled - part 2

[brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>]

[i've been informed the originating post on abuse was not in  
reference to me, yet the follow-on posts did seem to extend this to  
my work so i am going to continue with making the case about the  
status quo in which ideology has constrained what is possible, and  
the role of ideas in reasoning beyond this, where everyone is on the  
same side of the situation, even if having widely differing viewpoints]
---

* what if the price of thinking were considered in terms of the  
'conflict' of ideas, conflicting ideas as part of the cost of doing  
such business - that this is a natural condition for mediating ideas,  
which may be juxtaposed even opposed, and it becomes a question of  
how this is going to be mediated and the success or failure of doing  
so - in terms of the ideas themselves, would also be accounted for in  
some way. that is, that maybe there is a burden involved in all of  
this, that includes engaging the problems of thinking and the  
difficult aspects, not just the cheap easy and free use of ideas for  
other agendas, and instead, the responsibility of ideas to the  
foundations upon which they are built, in truths developed over  
lifetimes, of substance, and greater worth than any individual  
thinker alone.

then, what if this aspect of thinking and sharing of ideas, concepts,  
views, beliefs, speculations, was to not be grounded in a common  
language, in a common logic, in a common truth or reasoning-- that  
is, everyone can be talking and saying things, yet there are no  
bridges between the ideas, the thoughts, the truths espoused,  
necessarily. and instead, as with relativism, each thinker can  
recreate a worldview even universe unto themselves, and if divine  
call this infinite and preach such a gospel.

that is basically the situation today, in the extreme, because  
without a common foundation for relating across viewpoints, on shared  
issues, the reasoning is fractured to points of view which are based  
on bias and distortion of individual points of view that have no  
empirical relation in which to build a larger perspective. and, it is  
questionable as to the 'ideas' being considered, how accurate they  
are to modeling a larger reality than that of any given individual if  
they are not checked and balanced by other (external) views, which  
may contradict claims or beliefs which are said universal.

in this sense, the unconnected fragmented pursuit of ideas devolves  
ideas into simplistic ideology in which, regardless of external facts  
truth or evidence to the contrary, one's point of view is supreme,  
which tends toward divine despotism. this is also entirely privatized  
thinking, which may itself function in terms of market economics no  
less, that if others believe in the model being presented, however  
subjective or distorted or biased, that a private empiricism (and  
even Empire) can rise around these
ideas which are largely not related to outside points of view of  
fact, logic, reasoning, open debate, etc, which would obligate the  
ideas to be grounded in relation to the claims being made as a result.

that is, the ideas as ideas could be short-circuiting in terms of  
truth, logic, facts, reason, yet it would be unnecessary to have to  
acknowledge such a situation, based on the exploitation of this  
privatized position of power in hierarchical structures (education,  
institutions, groups) which can use privileges of authority  
(positions of power) to circumvent checks-and-balances, transforming  
the public review of ideas based on empirical facts, argument, into  
one of a belief system, which if one does not like it then one can  
simply make another choice as to their (private) beliefs, or leave  
school.

this then turns the process of reasoning ideas, which has gone on for  
centuries, into a private affair which functions only at the limited  
or constrained levels which are available in the thoughts, as they  
are believed to exist. which effectively is to say, questioning has  
been answered within an ideology.

"i believe this idea means this". (external: 'what about this?')  
"that is not how i see it..." ad adsurdum.

i.e. anyone can say anything about anything, yet it not mean anything  
to anyone else, i.e. babble. this is the curse of relativism, in  
which every facet becomes tangential to every other viewpoint, and in  
the denial or ignoring of the common geometrical connections, the  
larger in-formation is unseen.


without a grounding in common facts, truth, logic, and reasoning  
which is public - this can become a finite limit and boundary for  
'ideas' which are interpreted by private thinkers, using private  
language, private logic, private viewpoints or identities, and  
private reasoning that only people who can engage or accept ideas on  
these terms (of private engagement) can partake in this private  
empiricism, and thus build up an empire of such private thinking by  
which to then go on to declare larger truth which is not 'public'  
truth, and thus held in contest and competition with the other  
private worldviews and viewpoints in the 'marketplace of ideas' -  
which is largely being exploited in capitalist terms to keep things  
functioning just as they are today, which is beyond a doubt  
absolutely corrupt and broken and short-circuiting -- and even  
fascistic in its development and means of limited action -- all of  
which is directly related to the role of ideas and their success and  
failure in modeling the nature of reality, in the terms they exist  
and not only as they are believed to be, -- that thus there is some  
issue of the responsibility of ideas to be grounded in relation to a  
greater truth, reasoning, shared viewpoint that today is absent in  
thinking that is institutionalized and professionalized -- which now  
is only ideology.

* this is to say, the loss of 'reason' in ideas, in thinking, in the  
education system, in government (congress, senate, legislation) --  
this is ultimately a loss of the ability to think, and thus the  
ability to act, effectively, in relation to what exists, based on  
(enlightened or responsible) reasoning which is a failure of the  
assumption that this remains the basis for the Western worldview:  
public reason is not guiding the affairs of state: this has been  
entirely privatized, and in particular, by those in academics.

this is to say, empirical reason that is public has been lost  
(through historical failures of issues to do with philosophy and  
their not being resolved) to devolution brought on with paradigmatic  
changes in the 20th/21st century transition, which has been mediated  
online, through the metaphysics of theory, oftentimes, yet which  
requires 'grounding' which has ceased to exist in the old and  
existing approach and that this is demanded, necessitated, absolutely  
'critical' to engaging situations as they now exist and failing to do  
so is supporting, instead, the further automated (cybernetic)  
development of these conditions which give rise to fascist decision- 
making, of state machinery out of control, and people who serve them,  
including unthinkingly in academia which feeds this system through  
its denial of empirical truth, logic, and reasoning within its own  
systems, and beyond checks and balances just as the .US Congress  
ceases to represent the citizens, so too, educators cease to foster  
public truth.

9/11 is the result. the War in Iraq is the result, having no ability  
to publicly, empirically _reason that this ambiguity is not  
acceptable at the levels of checks and balances, versus what is being  
claimed. that this was largely based on a 'theoretical' premise: not  
a hypothesis which is speculation, not a thesis which can be  
disproven, instead, 'theory' which is making laws which are universal  
statements which, from a private relativistic perspective can be  
argued as absolute truth, given the privilege of perspective, and  
because of these language games (based in private language, private  
logic, private identity, and ultimately the privatization of reality  
itself) there is the situation today ::: which is directly tied to  
the 'thinking' of today which exists beyond empirical truth, shared  
truth, which is free-floating truths, subjective, untethered, without  
responsibility to a greater perspective of this questioning and only  
on the terms and within limits that this private viewpoint makes as  
conditions for engagement.

why is there problem with .US legislation regarding 'climate change'  
or 'global warming'? because, it is called 'a theory'. that is how  
the ideas which are empirical and legitimate are being dismissed, by  
the status quo ideology that is completely privatized and without  
checks and balances, and can be exploited by power which then becomes  
the overriding determiner of truth, by its self-representation.

who is to blame for this 'theory excuse'? is it the Bush  
Administration who is responsible for this? no.

it is those in academia who allow this to exist as an environment  
which is antithetical to real thought, and not some make-believe  
fantasy which can be delusional, despotic, mad, and outright abusive.  
of power, privilege, right, responsibility, which is being exploited  
by private people - who happen to be teachers/educators - over the  
public good - who happen to be students and citizens. the trade-off  
of this exchange in the university system is that public ideas lose  
to private ideologies and this occurs in a hierarchical system where  
ideas have become detached from their grounding in (objective) 'truth'.

this is to say, oftentimes, in the existing academic system that a  
private belief system (akin to religious ideology) may be the terms  
in which 'ideas' are being mediated, between teachers and students,  
as to progressing with 'ideas' in this system, which has become  
saturated in ideology. that is, the role of relativism, private  
realities, subjective reasoning, opinions, ungrounded speculations.

then, the student is to be graded as to how they perform with the  
pursuit of their own goals in relation to this status quo, which is  
in essence a question of how well they engage or are able to fit into  
this indoctrination into a private worldview, as it exists, from the  
perspective in which it exists. this is essentially making a public  
student conform to a private teachers limited, biased and distorted  
worldview in order to succeed to the next level. that is, it is the  
submission (student) and domination (master) of ideas to ideology, of  
the public agenda to its privatization, of empiricism to Empire, etc.

the responsibility to public truth, public facts, public knowledge,  
empirical evidence, peer review, of any acknowledge of any of these  
is optional at best, if not outright ignored because of the ideology  
of choice, and its exploitation in service of power, privilege and  
privatization of perspective which leads up to the abuses that are  
exported elsewhere (Iraq, etc) that have become the status quo by  
which young minds are being formated in what amounts to behavior  
animal training, ala Skinner, Pavlov.

"nothing gets the ignorant salivating like theory" because all  
responsibility to ideas is disregarded for the cheap easy and free  
thrillride of exploiting institutional mechanisms via absolute  
privatization of the mind, which serves well the ruling corporate  
ideology, which has become government (corporate democracy) which has  
led, through its self-representation, to a corporate dictatorship,  
the status-quo educational system feeding this mindset, developing it  
as an action, from start to finish- responsible for it, in terms of  
how ideas are grounded in the shared world of facts, whether it is  
ignored or not.

thus, the failure of the .US government is actually also the failure  
of the .US education system, which while people may say they *stand  
against* this latest incarnation, are actually contributing to its  
very necessity by going to work and doing what they are doing within  
the system, day by day, as common functioning of this status quo-- in  
the realm of applied thinking that has become relativized, and thus  
subsequently privatized, without grounding in the larger public  
realm, which self-evidently exists in the dying of humans at the  
hands of other humans, _beyond reason, which is the responsibility of  
thinkers and academics and so-called 'philosophers' to uphold, that  
is, the relation between ideas and truth and reason and logic and  
reality, and not merely make-it-up-as-you-go short fiction.

* thus it is not merely a "chip on one's shoulder" to dissent and  
stand against the educational system itself nor educators whose  
responsibility to greater truth has been abdicated, which in turn can  
take away the public and constitutional rights of students, to pursue  
a public reality and public issues, for the private divine  
dictatorship of teachers who can limit and bound anything to their  
perspective, and in turn, students may be called on to adapt, and if  
this is to do with thinking it can become peer and social behaviorist  
pressures, in which engaging this unfair and short-circuiting  
system : the status quo functioning is deemed sane and rational while  
the student is considered insane and irrational in not being able to  
conform to this situation, which is the opposite of truth and  
absolute hypocrisy.

a student may have to take psychiatric pills to try to conform and  
subdue their oppositional thinking, their conflicts with these ideas  
which would require reasoning to work through, not mere submission to  
the authority of institutional and ideological power. in effect what  
can happen is that the schools are not serving the students and their  
growth and instead the students are serving the institutions and  
their growth instead, which is no longer the growth of new ideas,  
only the refinement of existing views and their extension as  
ideology. which, becomes a business model in terms of the  
privatization and branding of knowledge in markets which are largely  
controlled and monopolized and outside of public checks and balances  
in relation to claims being made versus what more actually exists.

that a student may try to sue an institution because of this breach  
of rights depends on lawyers who can successfully reason this being  
the case, which could end up not being possible. and even those who  
are true educators may tell a student that if they want to work on  
their ideas they should and must leave the University, with several  
such teachers repeating such a phrase making it clear that this is  
the way of ideas, out of this environment, and into what amounts to  
the cost of such pursuits.

what this amounts to is that, when a student who is capable of public  
reasoning enters into such an environment which has been privatized,  
they may try to reason from within such a relativistic and fragmented  
state of affairs, and yet find no one to reason with in public terms,  
in logic, facts, truth which extends beyond private individual points  
of view, which then condemns reason to failure in the institutions of  
learning, which instead becomes rote mechanization of ideologies,  
which either are to be conformed to, or the participant is rejected  
by the system for not being able to adapt.

  imagine, for instance, if someone was presenting ideas online today  
that are expert-level understanding based on empirical facts, truth,  
logic, and public reasoning, yet this same thinking in the University  
was judged unfit by experts 15 years ago in the same particular field  
in which it was based - not because of facts, truth, logic, and  
reasoning and instead: private beliefs and ideologies, which took  
away the constitutional rights of a student, denying the truth of  
public ideas based on public thinking, because of institutional  
failures of reasoning which may not be an issue of free-will for the  
teachers, yet the cost to the student was equivalent to being cast  
into true hell, as a result.

the teachers, it may be said, bear no personal responsibility for  
this, though it could be argued that they are culpable as all others  
for accepting this as the status quo, which is fascistic at the level  
it dehumanizes people into mere things, natural resources, animals  
and machines which can be treated as such, abused as such, and  
treated as unfit or even more: labeled as 'insane' for pursuing  
public truth and public reasoning based in public facts, public  
logic, and public perspective, within the supposedly public though  
thoroughly privatized educational system. from this POV it is  
criminal. that is, to exist as a sane individual and be labeled as  
schizophrenic, given psychiatric drugs by which to attempt  
adaptation, to fail integration, and then, essentially, to be broken  
til adapting to the system.

it is this aspect that 'education' becomes 'state oppression' in that  
this is where the thinking of ideas is turned into the larger acts of  
the collective state. this denial of thinking and its policing by way  
of (the philosophy of) psychiatry is an enforcer to this private  
oppression of private subjective ideas which can ignore a larger  
truth, context, or empiricism, which has become detached from actual  
truth. and surely enough, if every system fails a citizen, they too  
will eventually fail themselves, by short-circuiting, yet this may  
not be an issue of free will and choosing to do so, and instead,  
having all options that were once available being whittled down to  
fewer and fewer until there are no other choices, and one is helpless  
to the situation and can only submit, doing so only in terms of  
survival.

so, others may mock or look down at these failures, personal and  
otherwise, using this as advantage in the realm of ideas, where those  
that succeed institutionally are somehow more fit, while those which  
fail these systems are somehow less real, less worthy, less valuable,  
in terms of the claims being made versus what more actually exists.  
someone may discredit a public argument or idea based on bigotry or  
prejudice which has become institutionalized and 'professed' such as:  
"well, you're a schizophrenic... therefore..." which, also, is part  
of this privatization and exploitation of the role of private  
identities in defining what is real, true, good, etc, for those who  
are not the weaker, lesser, meeker, among those institutionalized.  
the point being, the educational system feeds this dynamic and lives  
off of the creation of these problems, which function ideologically  
and against ideas which are based in human interests and  
responsibility (to truth, say) and instead it functions in the  
interests of unintelligent bureaucratic machinery which seeks its own  
evolution through enslaving people to this worldview (who willingly  
volunteer), to submit to what amounts to machine values, machine  
ethics, and a machine worldview devoid of actual grounding in a  
shared world reality that is based on human knowledge and insight and  
governance, versus the cybernetic machinery of today.

this fascism informs all that it enables to be enacted, as an  
ideology based on assumptions related to ideas, questioning of which  
can be 'ignored' in this cybernetic (feedback-based) system, which if  
it does not have the actual feedback it needs ("this is fascist!"),  
it will only continue to refine itself in these terms, which is of  
private corporate machinery run amok, universities being the training  
center.

the lack of responsibility to uphold the checks-and-balances of  
ideas, based in empirical truth, leads to this cybernetic mechanism  
being able to evolve beyond the boundary or responsibility to this  
fact, which in turn, facilitates the creative science fiction of  
theorists, unbound by public responsibility to the empirical  
grounding of their ideas in a shared reality, by which to check and  
balance arguments, versus the creation, by venture (intellectual)  
capitalists as 'optional futures' by which to evolve this larger  
cybernetic mechanism (the state itself and all minds formated by  
given ideology accordingly). in this, there is complicity in the  
status quo for how educators educate and institutions function, as if  
on autopilot in relation to these corrupted practices, which is then  
seen in the policies of state which are also, likewise, unbounded by  
constraints of rule, law, fact, with regard to public reality as it  
is then privately interpreted and represented (believed or not) so as  
to pursue power through politics.

in this sense, academics are paving the way for this as a  
methodological approach to the creation of ideology by which to apply  
as a means-to-an-end, regardless of any truth that may stand in the way.

that is, academics are equally as corrupt as the politicians today -  
only moreso: for the mirror is not yet on them, and this can all be  
ignored as if out of place, another subjective opinion, in poor taste.

dissent of the educational system, in terms of the institution of the  
reigning fascist-breeding ideology, is not to dissent the role of  
academics in public ideas, thinking, reasoning, it is to dissent the  
lack of this as being a principle by which institutions now perform  
and fail to perform their duty: to ideas, to the truth of what  
exists, and not the theology of belief systems and faith in  
assumptions proven wrong yet repeated anyway, because there is no  
personal expectation or responsibility to uphold this truth, this  
*accounting* of philosophy, of ideas in relation to a reality they  
model and are to represent.

this is to say, the University culture is no different than Enron and  
other *accounting scandals* - not in terms of money -- in terms of  
ideas and their private use and abuse in the application of power.

the failure of the education system necessitates the cybernetic short- 
circuiting of 9/11, by which the state as cybernetic organism  
requires so as to evolve beyond its existing limits and constraints  
which it is required to, as an automated machine - beyond the  
question of free will, if it is _limited in options by which to  
proceed-- and this failure is one of thinking, of minds, of ideas  
grounded in a shared empirical reality, that has been discarded in  
academia for _fictions and privatized reasoning and relativized  
perspectives which cannot allow the sharing of ideas, because of  
status quo ideology.

that is, the system of checks and balances within educational system  
have been lost. it is a corrupted system, it is doing more harm than  
good, with respect to what is claimed versus the actual results of  
this education: imagine, you have 9/11 and an entire educated of 300  
million people cannot come up with a better argument than 'terrorism'  
by which to proceed to engage issues as they actually exist. is this  
really the failure of the .US political system if what is  
'represented' actually represents this very ignorance, willful even  
if cynical, is this not actually an effective 'democracy in action'  
which is most effectively representing 'terror' as an ideology, in  
policy, as an ideology, and a success in being able to do so, in  
terms of placing these ideas into action, to program the software of  
the collective state and millions of minds, that yes, this is the  
subjective argument, the private reasoning, the relativist slice of  
the infinity we can reality, incorporated, and this is what exists,  
how, and thus making it so.

9/11 is not an aberration, it is an extension of the loss of public  
reason within academia that leads to the loss of public reason within  
government. it is the loss of public reason within individuals minds,  
as they are being indoctrinated into privatized thinking by  
ideologues in what amounts to indoctrination, which has led to the  
imbalances at larger and smaller scales. psychiatric diagnosis in  
individuals, say with fragmented views unable to be made whole  
(empirically grounded) are not the failing of people, it is the  
failing of institutions to allow this to exist, which then scales up  
to a schizophrenic state, in which such fractured thinking is said to  
represent reality, to the point of madness as state policy...

* therefore, in this more complex consideration of ideas and  
institutions, the public view would be a bit different than that of  
the ideological status-quo and, an example of this being  
'conservatives on campus' who rail against this very dynamic between  
teachers and students, where teachers will not allow certain thinking  
to enter into consideration and will limit what can be pursued within  
education. they are absolutely right in this claim, yet this is not a  
partial issue of a particular group or cause, this is about human  
rights and representation and constitutional rights, the right to  
think, the right to one's own beliefs and not having to submit to  
those of a teacher, in order to get ahead, etc. that is, there exists  
a dilemma which transcends all the existing portrayals in that they  
are shared human conditions which are relevant for everyone, as human  
beings, in relation to this cybernetic machinery which has become  
fascistic and works against human interests and those of a larger  
shared state. to deny one person's rights in an educational  
institution is ultimately to deny everyone's rights, if it is a human  
right that is being denied. because, what ultimately is denied is a  
human idea, a reality which is needing to be engaged so as to evolve  
(and survive and thrive) and thus, without these ideas in this  
institutional context being free to exist and grow, the actions which  
they would enable would also die out, go extinct, through this  
malfunctioning of those who would rather serve machinic monsters  
devoid of spirit or human purpose. that is, people have given their  
rights over to an automated machinery, which enslaves us and trains  
us through behaviorism and social darwinistic techniques, by which to  
evolve what amounts to robots and apes and machinery (cyborgs) while  
we lose our humanity as a result of this trade-off of ideas for  
status-quo ideology (which is now dehumanized).

* for instance, imagine if there was an unjust if illegal global war  
which went about snatching up people who it represented as enemies of  
the state, democracy, which then proceeded to put these humans in  
cages without trial for years on end, and submitted them to all forms  
of pressure, in which to break them, including torture. for years.  
without human rights. without constitutional questioning. without  
international conventions, rules of war, rights of prisoners of war.  
disregarding conventions. imagine that some of these humans may be  
totally innocent, yet have been treated so badly as to go on mass  
hunger strikes, to protest and seek outside intervention of this  
situation. to the point where, if dying, these people would be  
strapped into restraining devices to force food down their throats so  
they may be sustained as a living organism, as a natural resource, so  
to maintain this situation in the terms it exists, as machinery based  
on policy which represents said government and its people. now  
imagine if in all of this situation there is utter silence and then,  
3 people commit suicide and what is said to have happened in this  
instance is that these human beings 'commited an act of war' in doing  
so, in killing themselves, against the needs and desires of this  
machinery and how it is represented. that, of the 300 million  
citizens, no one can successfully argue in their 'democratic'  
government why this use of torture, indefinite imprisonment,  
potentially false charges, are not against the principles, the very  
ideas which constitute the democratic state itself? i.e. that torture  
has somehow become equivalent to a personal prerogative of one's  
person's rights over another, in order ot have freedom. that is, one  
person's private freedom is allowed to take away another person's,  
based not on shared (open and transparent) fact, truth, reason,  
logic, and instead, on a relativistic accounting of 'reality, inc' as  
one sees it, as it is represented in the status-quo which operates  
this way in its every action.

that is, how could an educated country not reason that torture is not  
freedom, that tyranny is not democracy, that privatization is not  
simply public interest, that relativism is not so easily universal?  
if there were total silence would this not indicate the *failure of  
educational system* to enable such basic thinking which is grounded  
in a shared public reality - and its absence an indication of the  
total inability to reason, empirically, with regard to occupying this  
shared field of endeavor, responsibility, that the education system  
has fundamentally failed in *accounting* for the truth of this  
situation, in terms that should enable any citizen to stand up and  
successfully reason why this is unacceptable and must be condemned  
and *does not represent* the human public, and instead only a private  
view which has become that of private dictatorship that wields power  
beyond and behind the constitution.

this Guantanamo Prison uprising happened, people died, the rest  
remain, and this 'war of terror' will be able to continue until *the  
responsibility* of citizens is given to _public ideas, facts, truth,  
logic, and reasoning, by which to counter this existing and ongoing  
privatization, versus existing in the shelters of hypocrisy that only  
further validate the culpability of individuals who have conformed,  
that it is this thorough and total corruption within systems that  
also effects and influences individuals within them, that the price  
of this should not, must not, and cannot be one's very soul: or can  
it? it now becomes a choice whereas it may never have been before, to  
have another option than the status quo, even if it is to suffer the  
consequences of dissent- and that is, to speak public truth to  
private power, and this is to include the divine dictatorship of the  
self which can meld reality to its own liking regardless to the facts  
or the effect is has on others, which can be disregarded and  
dehumanized, allowing people to only exist as apes and machines, even  
if the evidence is otherwise, complex situations demanding it if  
reasoning ideas and not simply ideology. this sliding scale of  
experiences and judgments being quite humbling to any all  
encompassing and all conquering worldview which ultimately can turn  
one's eyes into mirrors, instead of windows, which then can blind one  
to one's own internal absolutism and subsequent hypocrisy, which if  
truly believed, would be a state of madness so extreme as to be  
dangerous.

* this may be the basic condition in which, through a short- 
circuiting of public reason, the ability of private power to  
represent total reality is placed as a potential future, and may  
inhibit each individual who tries to navigate via a decentralized  
process of empirical reasoning, the conflicts which arise between  
points of view, which compete in terms of competing private  
worldviews unless grounded in a shared realm, which places everyone  
on the same side, as human beings, with varying aspects of what this  
means in a world of machines and states and different needs, goals.  
that is, the price and burden of engaging in ideas, as ideas, may  
require or necessitate a submission to this public reality, public  
logic, public thinking, public language, public identity that is  
shared, so as to engage these issues, which otherwise have been  
silenced within this status-quo. that is, to share in the larger  
reality would mean to become engaged with ideas beyond existing  
ideology, to serve the truth not power firstly, to allow paradox and  
complexity to exist and be humbled by empirical reason, and rewarded  
for doing so by its opening up unbounded exploration and infinite  
insight into the workings and mysteries, and to pursue such ideas as  
human beings (public and private) though from this shared  
perspective, as a foundation, which can be shared at the scale  
required for engagement in this day, for the issues faced, in the  
context required. as a psychology which sustains human reality.

what is gained is public reality, what is recontextualized is  
everything, empirically, albeit with changes that are dynamic,  
validating truths where they exist and discrediting those that should  
not be given any more credence than they are due: this would enable  
an *accounting* to occur between public ideas and private ideologies  
which would overturn the old paradigm, through education, and invert  
this situation to one where what is being held back, sustained yet in  
silence becomes an advantage, for this public reasoning that is  
suppressed, held back by these false limits and private conjectures  
will be torrential when shared as a public reasoning, based in a  
common and public humanity, that by nature and default, belongs in  
this position, observer and observed, and must now be claimed...

[cont.]

  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  ~e-list -- groups.google.com/group/electronetwork-l





#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net